It isn’t all a bed of roses, trying to be a dictator.

Jeeves and Wooster

3.5: Hot Off the Press

(aka Sir Watkyn’s Memoirs)

There's some serious thieving going on from Blandings Castle in this episode, albeit one could argue that by using a very early Wooster short story revolving around the same subject, it's fair game to get the drop on the account of Sir Galahad Threepwood's memoirs that formed the backbone of probably the best known Blandings novels, Summer Lightning and Heavy Weather.

Bertie Wooster: Who's playing Mike in this merry melange of fun and topicality?
Stiffy Bing: Constable Oates.

Still, it never quite rings true to the starchiness of Sir Watkyn's character – former magistrate and justice of the peace – that he should engage in anything so scurrilous as spilling the beans on those he has encountered over the years. The plot just about stands up to it, though, with Bertie inveigled into stealing the manuscript, thus preventing publication, by Madeline Basset and his betrothed, Florence Craye (Fiona Gillies).

Likewise, you can see how transposing some of the elements from Deverill Hall (The Mating Season) to Totleigh Towers works (Bartholomew substituting for Sam, Stiffy for Corky and Oates – Steve Harwood as the second of three actors in the role – for Dobbs are perfect fits), but it does rather have the side effect of making Gussie appear something of a wannabe lothario by giving him back-to-back fancies (last episode for Gertrude and here for Stiffy).

Spode: Never do that again, Fink-Nottle!

Still, this is quality Gussie material, impressed as he is upon a Pat and Mike sketch in the town hall concert and, when Oates drops out, squared up against Sir Roderick Spode and required to hit him with an umbrella as part of the comic business. There's no really good reason for Spode to show up here, except that he’s incredibly good value and John Turner's performance is incredibly good. He features in an amusing attempt to break into Sir Watkyn's safe, in which Bertie arrives on the scene to find Spode already there:

Spode: Sir Watkyn asked me to fetch some things for him.

Bertie Wooster: With a hammer?

It seems there's some juicy details on Sir Roderick in the book ("It isn't all a bed of roses, trying to be a dictator": "Why don't you give it up, then?") but naturally, things go pear-shaped and they both have to flee (diving through a window).

Bertie Wooster: Old Gussie seems to live only for excitement, Jeeves.

As we saw in 1.2: Tuppy and the Terrier, an amateur talent night is always a recipe for disaster, and if this isn't quite up there with the vegetable throwing on that occasion we're witness to Stinker (a welcome return from Simon Treeves; he essayed the role throughout the series) singing "A Hunting We Will Go" to much applause, despite Bertie's uneasiness ("Fruit will be thrown"). The crowd response gives him the confidence to take Stiffy's hand in marriage from Sir Watkyn, rather than ask for it.

Stiffy: Where on Earth did you go to school?

Bertie Wooster: Eton, and we didn’t do safecracking.

Gussie's only in the talent show because of Stiffy, who refuses to release him until he's done as he's told. Ah yes, the new Stiffy. Easily the best is Charlotte Attenborough, who would return for the last season; Amanda Harris is serviceable but lacks a sense of playfulness Attenborough brought to the part.

As for Gussie, he not only incurs the wrath of Spode but must endure Oates bearing down on him when he retrieves Stiffy’s incarcerated dog, the aforementioned Bartholomew ("I'd never give you any sort of odds for Gussie as a sprinter on the flat" observes Bertie, who has to eat his words, only for Gussie to foolishly "escape" up a tree; as a solution, Jeeves boshes Oates on the head). Naturally, he returns to Madeline, citing the need for someone less exciting.

Lady Florence: I will never marry you if those memoirs are published.

Madeline doesn't ask Gussie to rob the safe, on the grounds that "Augustus isn't a man of action like you" (he’s a man of intellect), noting too that "It's only a little safe". The strongest pressure on Bertie comes from Lady Florence Cray, however. She needs to be Sir Watykn's niece to make the story work (it's her father Lord Worplesdon in the short story, who will eventually marry Aunt Agatha and so become Bertie's Uncle Percy), so that's what she is; Jeeves in Charge is the story of Jeeves' first encounter with his master, so obviously, most of those formative elements are absent, although the basic structure of Bertie stealing the parcel bound for the publisher, secreting it in his room, Jeeves whisking it away before his room is searched, then sending it to the publisher, thus incurring Florence's wrath, is followed fairly scrupulously. Bertie does not fire Jeeves here as a consequence of the latter expressing his view of the unsuitability of their union, although he says he will need to think very seriously about his future; he realises the near miss he made when he hears her remonstrating non-abstemious servants and mentioning the Theosophical Society, which Wodehouse clearly had enough of a thing about to mention quite regularly, possibly because his older brother tutored Krishnamurti.

Bertie Wooster: You don't disapprove?

Jeeves: It's hardly my place to say.

Bertie Wooster: Well, I know it's hardly your place to say, Jeeves. That doesn't usually stop you.

Jeeves isn't, of course, wrong about Florence, and he flourishes some particularly withering put downs of his master on this occasion, from the latter running through a new tune Nagasaki on the piano ("Is that wise, sir, so soon after a heavy meal?") to his view on Strength Through Willpower (he put it by Bertie's bedside table, considering it looked like "an excellent remedy for insomnia"). And his sarcasm regarding Bertie trying to improve his mind ("That scarcely seems possible"). Then there’s his view on Nagasaki itself:

Jeeves: Extremely… invigorating, sir.

Bertie Wooster: Makes you want to get up and bally well have run round the park.

Jeeves: My feelings precisely, sir.

He also refuses to steal the manuscript for Bertie ("You’re a hard man, Jeeves": "But a free one, sir, and it is my ambition to remain in that state"), although he seems happy enough handling stolen goods later. And assaulting Oates, which could easily have landed him in stir). A lively episode, then, that mostly manages to make good on its mish-mash of plotting and recast characters.

One aspect of the novel that doesn't make the episode is Bertie's contribution to the talent show. I hadn't realised Wodehouse had such a feud with AA Milne, principally on account of his former friend becoming a severe critic due to Wodehouse's wartime record (hence Bertie’s disdain of "Christopher Robin going hopitty hop" in The Mating Season).

Sources:

The Mating Season

Jeeves Takes Charge (Chapter 1 of Carry On, Jeeves)

Recurring Characters:

Sir Watkyn Bassett (1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5)

Madeline Basset (1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5)

Gussie Fink-Nottle (1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.4, 3.5)

Sir Roderick Spode (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)

Rev H P “Stinker” Pinker (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)

Stephanie “Stiffy” Byng (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)

Constable Oates (2.1, 2.2, 3.5)

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog